Re: Einstein FRAUD with the paper on m=E/c^2

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 14:13:25 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
 

Den 04.03.2025 18:24, skrev rhertz:

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 13:35:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>
<snip>

The famous pion decay into two photons prove that mass can
indeed be converted to energy (kinetic energy of mass-less particles).
>
In SI units the equation in the rest frame of the pion becomes:
 mc? = 2 h/f
>
where m is the mass of the pion in kg, c is the speed of light in m/s
h = 6.62607015e–34 kg?m?/s, f = the frequency 1/c
>
SI definition of 1 kg = (h/6.62607015e–34) s/m?
>
So we have  kg?m?/s? on both sides
>
If it is true that mass can be converted energy,

>
Which is experimentally confirmed.
>

then the Equation E = mc? is true by definition!

>
See Jan's post.
>

>
But c? is only a proportionality coefficient necessary
to balance the units in the SI system.
>

>

>
It's a no-brainer to believe in the conversion of mass into energy.
>
>
In the last couple of millenniums, or even longer than that, and even
before the CONSENSUS that heat was a kind of energy (early XIX century),
thousands/millions of inquisitive minds wondered HOW COME wood in a fire
CONSUMED to ashes, with most of its volume disappearing, while heat
(radiant, by convection or conduction) was generated. The first
water-based engine/toy was invented about 2,000 years ago.
>
The heated water disappeared (mass), converting the opposite flows into
mechanical work (energy). Ancient Romans enjoyed this gadget, and I'm
sure that many tried to find a practical use of this effect.
>
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/oqn2f/
til_the_ancient_romans_had_steam_engines_the/

>
Why are you diverting the attention from the issue
by telling us that the romans believed the mass of
the water disappeared when it was heated?
>

>
What I've been questioned here, for years, is that E=mc^2 is A FUCKING
CONVENTION, and that Einstein committed FRAUD in his FUCKING 1905 paper,
using circular reasoning. After a few years, seal physicists applauded
this simple equation (NOT PROVEN ONCE THEORETICALLY), and hyped the
image of Einstein as the genius of geniuses.

>
Of course you can't prove theoretically that mass can
be converted to energy and vice versa.
>
You can however prove that it follows from
some assumptions.
Einstein's derivation is a thought experiment,
so of course it is circular.
He says: If we assume the postulates of SR and Maxwell's
theory are correct, then it follows that E = ? m.
>
Now we know that his conclusion was correct, even
if his derivation may be questioned.
>
Because now  it is proved experimentally!
>
When a pion decays, the mass of the pion disappear completely.
The photons are massless 'pure' kinetic energy.
>
Do you dispute this?
>
This is what the equation E =  mc? expresses.
>
But yes, the form of the equation is a convention since
the choice of units is a convention.
With different choice of units the equation may be different.
>
Like E = m
>
But it expresses the same: energy can be converted to mass
and vice versa.
>
And that is not a convention, it is a fact.

 
I question your assertion that E = mc? work both ways (mc? = E). This IS
NOT AN EQUATION! This is a 1-way expression, which doesn't work
reversing terms positions.
 
And don't come with the crap of particle physics.

Do have a look at a gamma ray cascade,
from an energetic cosmic ray for example.
(already discovered before WWII)

You see energetic gamma rays creating energetic electron-positron pairs,
which produced more gammas, which produce more pairs, and so on,
until you have a particle shower that is easily detected,

Jan